I will challenge a bit by being provocative: how is Mary's act of faith different from Peter or John's act of faith or that of every Christian participating in the Body of Christ? Each person who has said yes to Christ's calling and have mourned deeply the crucifixion is co-redemptrix with our Lord? In some sense yes, we are called to theosis and participating in the divine will. In another sense, Mary is different because she was the human mother of the God-man. But the differentiation is in her motherhood and unique role in salvation.
The problem is that co-redemptrix sounds scandalous as if Mary is equal with Christ, but if you theologically explain it you end up something that can be arguably applied to every Saint. The title obfuscates more than it clarifies. I am concerned that many trad Catholics will lean into it because it will scandalize Protestants.
I actually thought of that exact problem when I was writing this. My short answer, which I am still thinking through, is that every saint is a co-worker in salvation in the sense that the faith or salvation is continued throughout time by the action of Christians, both when they personally participate in it and when they help bring others to Christ. So I guess analogously they could be said to be co-redeemers with Christ. But in actual fact, no one participated in Christ’s work of redemption like Mary. She actually, as Mother and Christ’s associate, helped bring about salvation for the world. Without her, God’s plan for salvation looks quite different. This does not mean that God couldn’t have saved man another way, but that he freely chose to involve Mary in a unique way. So in that way, she is actually singularly unique as “co-redemptrix”.
Now, that does not mean, as I said in the article, that that title needs to be solemnly defined. In fact, I don’t think it needs to be. I think it’s most likely theologically correct, looking at the Tradition, but it doesn’t seem to be “necessary” in the way that the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption is necessary. I.e., you could legitimately disagree with the title while still acknowledging Mary’s unique role in salvation, as many of the Popes have done. I could be wrong and I’m open to that, but theologically, this is what I believe from my research. Really looking forward to seeing what the CDF says on November 4th.
And I also tend to agree with your take on using it as a way of intentional scandal, which should obviously be avoided at all costs.
I prefer "first participant in Christ's redemptive work". First as in place not chronologically. Obviously, doesn't have the same ring. I think we need to be very clear that the work of Salvation was by the Triune God, and we are called to participate in the Lord's saving work.
Something can both be technically correct by some argument, but also deceptive in how it's portrayed or communicated. I'm struggling to figure out who this formulation is for other than affirmation for people already with deep devotion to Mary, or people who want to create further distance from Protestants. Most Catholics I'd just point to existing teachings on Mary, and they'll have evening to chew on.
I like the write up, but I think you should take more serious the context of taking a stance on co-redemptrix today. If this is a theological truth (plausiblely a trivial one), why elevate the issue today? If the Vatican discourages this emphasis, it will upset some wonderful devote Christians.
You did a great job of explaining the precise meaning of the phrase. The issue I have with my Protestant friends is that when they hear “co-redemptrix” they think we are suggesting that Mary is the primary cause of salvation and that God entirely depends on her. Mary is not a second source of salvation co-equal with God, but rather the primary instrument of God’s plan of salvation. God is completely self-sufficient (i.e. aseity) so He did not need Mary in the strict sense. Nevertheless, in actual salvation history, Mary played a unique and crucial role.
I think you hit the nail on the head— Theologically and practically. Which is why I don’t think it’ll be defined as dogma and is not “necessary” de fide, even though it seems theologically true.
Η θέση της Θεοτόκου στην Εκκλησία αποσαφηνίζεται πλήρως στις αποφάσεις της Γ' Οικουμενικής Συνόδου και στο έργο του Αγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρείας. Δεν υπάρχει κάτι περισσότερο να προστεθεί, καθώς στην Εκκλησία δεν υπάρχουν "επόμενα δόγματα" σε θέματα που έχουν αποσαφηνιστεί, αφού η Αλήθεια, όπως λέει ο απόστολος Παύλος, δόθηκε από το Άγιο Πνεύμα εφάπαξ. / The position of the Theotokos in the Church is fully clarified in the decisions of the 3rd Ecumenical Council and in the work of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. There is nothing more to add, as there are no "next dogma" in the Church on matters that have been clarified, since the Truth, as the Apostle Paul says, was given by the Holy Spirit once and for all.
I will challenge a bit by being provocative: how is Mary's act of faith different from Peter or John's act of faith or that of every Christian participating in the Body of Christ? Each person who has said yes to Christ's calling and have mourned deeply the crucifixion is co-redemptrix with our Lord? In some sense yes, we are called to theosis and participating in the divine will. In another sense, Mary is different because she was the human mother of the God-man. But the differentiation is in her motherhood and unique role in salvation.
The problem is that co-redemptrix sounds scandalous as if Mary is equal with Christ, but if you theologically explain it you end up something that can be arguably applied to every Saint. The title obfuscates more than it clarifies. I am concerned that many trad Catholics will lean into it because it will scandalize Protestants.
I actually thought of that exact problem when I was writing this. My short answer, which I am still thinking through, is that every saint is a co-worker in salvation in the sense that the faith or salvation is continued throughout time by the action of Christians, both when they personally participate in it and when they help bring others to Christ. So I guess analogously they could be said to be co-redeemers with Christ. But in actual fact, no one participated in Christ’s work of redemption like Mary. She actually, as Mother and Christ’s associate, helped bring about salvation for the world. Without her, God’s plan for salvation looks quite different. This does not mean that God couldn’t have saved man another way, but that he freely chose to involve Mary in a unique way. So in that way, she is actually singularly unique as “co-redemptrix”.
Now, that does not mean, as I said in the article, that that title needs to be solemnly defined. In fact, I don’t think it needs to be. I think it’s most likely theologically correct, looking at the Tradition, but it doesn’t seem to be “necessary” in the way that the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption is necessary. I.e., you could legitimately disagree with the title while still acknowledging Mary’s unique role in salvation, as many of the Popes have done. I could be wrong and I’m open to that, but theologically, this is what I believe from my research. Really looking forward to seeing what the CDF says on November 4th.
And I also tend to agree with your take on using it as a way of intentional scandal, which should obviously be avoided at all costs.
I prefer "first participant in Christ's redemptive work". First as in place not chronologically. Obviously, doesn't have the same ring. I think we need to be very clear that the work of Salvation was by the Triune God, and we are called to participate in the Lord's saving work.
Something can both be technically correct by some argument, but also deceptive in how it's portrayed or communicated. I'm struggling to figure out who this formulation is for other than affirmation for people already with deep devotion to Mary, or people who want to create further distance from Protestants. Most Catholics I'd just point to existing teachings on Mary, and they'll have evening to chew on.
I like the write up, but I think you should take more serious the context of taking a stance on co-redemptrix today. If this is a theological truth (plausiblely a trivial one), why elevate the issue today? If the Vatican discourages this emphasis, it will upset some wonderful devote Christians.
You did a great job of explaining the precise meaning of the phrase. The issue I have with my Protestant friends is that when they hear “co-redemptrix” they think we are suggesting that Mary is the primary cause of salvation and that God entirely depends on her. Mary is not a second source of salvation co-equal with God, but rather the primary instrument of God’s plan of salvation. God is completely self-sufficient (i.e. aseity) so He did not need Mary in the strict sense. Nevertheless, in actual salvation history, Mary played a unique and crucial role.
I think you hit the nail on the head— Theologically and practically. Which is why I don’t think it’ll be defined as dogma and is not “necessary” de fide, even though it seems theologically true.
Η θέση της Θεοτόκου στην Εκκλησία αποσαφηνίζεται πλήρως στις αποφάσεις της Γ' Οικουμενικής Συνόδου και στο έργο του Αγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρείας. Δεν υπάρχει κάτι περισσότερο να προστεθεί, καθώς στην Εκκλησία δεν υπάρχουν "επόμενα δόγματα" σε θέματα που έχουν αποσαφηνιστεί, αφού η Αλήθεια, όπως λέει ο απόστολος Παύλος, δόθηκε από το Άγιο Πνεύμα εφάπαξ. / The position of the Theotokos in the Church is fully clarified in the decisions of the 3rd Ecumenical Council and in the work of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. There is nothing more to add, as there are no "next dogma" in the Church on matters that have been clarified, since the Truth, as the Apostle Paul says, was given by the Holy Spirit once and for all.